This is a collection of readings that are relevant to the topic but didn't make it into the individual lessons. Many of them are general background, others are in-depth treatments of particular topics. Enjoy!

CookiesWant some more information about cookies? This is the place to go.
(details)

Whose Privacy Is At Risk?Browse through this report of the Federal Trade Commission that surveyed privacy practices on the web. Pick a section that interests you and read it--You need not read the entire report.
(details)

Abstract: The Federal Trade Commmission surfed children's web sites to review privacy practices and found that 86% of sites collected personal data, 30% posted a privacy policy, and 4% asked the children to get parental permission. Skim the FTC report if you are interested in the details.

Abstract: The Federal Trade Commmission surfed children's web sites to review privacy practices and found that 86% of sites collected personal data, 30% posted a privacy policy, and 4% asked the children to get parental permission.

Abstract: Answer a quick (seven question) survey to analyze the privacy policies on the web sites that you regularly use. Based on the results submitted by "watchdog" participants, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will begin to build lists of those sites with privacy policies and those without.

EncryptionEncryption is a way of scrambling a message so that unauthorized persons cannot read the message. Encrypting a message is analogous to putting the message in a safe. The "key" that is used to unscramble an encrypted message is analogous to the "combination" used to unlock the safe. The longer the key, or combination, the more secure is the message.
(details)

Privacy Protection Technologies: EncryptionEncryption is a way of scrambling a message so that unauthorized persons cannot read the message. Encrypting a message is analogous to putting the message in a safe. The "key" that is used to unscramble an encrypted message is analogous to the "combination" used to unlock the safe. The longer the key, or combination, the more secure is the message.
(details)

Abstract: In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was geared toward the protection of property. The Court's inclination to protect property quite clearly is reflected in its 1928 decision in Olmstead v. United States (277 U.S. 438 (1928)).

In Olmstead, the Supreme Court held that use of a wiretap to intercept a private telephone conversation was not a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. One of the grounds on which the Court justified its result was that there had been no physical intrusion into the person's home. Under Olmstead's narrow view of the Fourth Amendment, the amendment was not applicable in the absence of physical intrusion. Thus, without trespass or seizure of any material object, surveillance was beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Olmstead Court.

However, in its well-known decision in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court rejected Olmstead's "trespass" doctrine, articulating, in its place, a Fourth Amendment jurisprudence based on the protection of individual privacy. In Katz, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places: "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection¼ But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
Thus, the Court held that physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is not necessary before a search and seizure can be held to violate the Fourth Amendment.

According to the Court in Katz, "once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects people-and not simply "areas"-against unreasonable searches and seizures it becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure." Thus, although the Government's activities in Katz involved no physical intrusion, they were found to have violated the privacy on which the petitioner justifiably relied and thus constituted "search and seizure" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment.

Changing technology precipitated the shift from protection of property to protection of privacy. In 1968, just one year after Katz, Congress passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act authorizing microphone surveillance or wiretapping for law enforcement purposes, and requiring a warrant, based on probable cause, prior to such surveillance or wiretapping.

Privacy Protection Under the Law: A Right to Anonymity?Is there a right to anonymity? The most recent United States Supreme Court case dealing with this issue was McIntyre. Skim the Supreme Court's opinion.
At issue in McIntyre was the constitutionality of an identification requirement. When you read the case, focus on the court's discussion on anonymity. What role might anonymity play in a constitutional democracy? What considerations indicate that there should be limits on anonymity?
(details)

Privacy Protection Under the Law: Existing Congressional LegislationFor more information on any of these statutes, see http://thomas.loc.gov

Abstract: According to Prosser, there are four actions for tortious invasion of privacy. That is, one person can sue another person for the following "invasions of privacy":
1) Instrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs;
2) Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff;
3) Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eyes;
4) Appropriation of the plaintiff's name or likeness (for the advantage of the defendant)

Abstract: Under the EU PRivacy Directive, any company that trades personal information with any of 15 EU member states will be required to meet the EU's strict standards for privacy protection. EU members will not be permitted to send personal information to countries that do not maintain "adequate" standards of privacy, where "adequate" has not yet been defined.

Abstract: In order to prevent fraud, Intel planned to have its Pentium III include an individualized number. The number would be transmitted across the Internet without the end user knowing so that e-commerce sites could track the customer to their computer.

Abstract: When privacy advocates protested the design of Intel's Pentium III, Intel responded to public pressure and changed the configuration of the chip.
Is the new design for the better or for the worse?
Did the privacy advocates win? Why or why not?

"The Netizen: Drudge Match", Andrew Shapiro, Wired News, 4/23/1998This article explores the Drudge decision within the larger Internet libel context. It is a great, quick source for a backdrop to the libel discussion.
(details)

"What is Libel and Other Questions", David PottsWritten by a Canidian libel attorney, this is a short primer on libel and other terms and issues. Feel free to skim for quick ansewrs to questions about some of the terminology in this lesson.
(details)